Sarah Palin’s Herbal Tea

The former Alaska governor has called marijuana a “minimal problem.” Will her supporters embrace state-level efforts to legalize the drug?

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

What’s more novel than hearing Tea Party empress Sarah Palin say the word “joint”? How about hearing her say people who smoke them should be left alone?

“I’m not for the legalization of pot because that I think would just encourage, especially our young people, to think that it’s okay to go ahead and use it,” she told Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano in June. Yet, she continued,

I think we need to prioritize our law-enforcement efforts, and if somebody is going to smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society that are appropriate for law enforcement to do, and not concentrate on such a relatively speaking minimal problem that we have in the country.

Palin may be trying to have it both ways. But her casual language about “smoking a joint” and quip that police might have something more “appropriate … to do” than busting marijuana users are a new twist from a politician with such a strong following among social conservatives.

Whether Palin was expressing her libertarian side or merely saying what Napolitano’s audience wanted to hear, her words signal a change in the debate. And Palin wields the power to do what the marijuana-reform lobby has so far been unable to accomplish: prevail upon conservative Republicans to support changing state laws and ending the 73-year-old federal prohibition of marijuana.

Was she just blowing smoke? Michael Boldin of the federalist Tenth Amendment Center thinks so. “I wasn’t very impressed by the statement,” he says. She was “just playing to the audience.” But Palin’s supporters in the Tea Party movement may be another matter—their anti-government attitudes and emphasis on decentralization may be the bridge that joins conservatives to the cause of marijuana decriminalization.

Boldin agrees that even dyed-in-the-wool Republicans now seem slightly more open to discussion: “They say, ‘we agree the federal government should not be involved’.” And while they may want to see the drug remain illegal in their state, “they say, ‘if they want [legalization] in California, that’s alright with me.’”

“I think that’s a big step,” Boldin concedes.

A test of conservatives’ commitment to federalism in this area is fast approaching. California will put full legalization to a referendum in November. Proposition 19 would “regulate, tax and control” marijuana, making it legal for every adult in the state, not just those who have already been obtaining the drug under the medical marijuana law passed in 1996. If it passes, will the Tea Parties support California against the federal government’s drug laws?

Recent polls show the referendum could go either way. Californians have become more open to legalization after seeing that the state did not implode once the 1996 law was passed—and because legalization could annually bring in upwards of $200 million in tax revenue (though opponents dispute that figure) to replenish the state’s empty coffers.

“The day the debate turned to finances and the bean counters took it over it was, in my view, [the day] the laws would be reformed,” says Allen St. Pierre, president of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “I rarely find myself talking about the health risks of cannabis anymore, and most of time I’m asked, ‘what are the tax benefits of legalization?’”

So far Republicans have hardly played a role in generating support for Prop 19. The statewide GOP candidates grabbing the media spotlight—Senate nominee Carly Fiorina and gubernatorial contender Meg Whitman, who called marijuana “a gateway drug whose use would expand greatly among our children if it were to be legalized”—are plainly against the proposition. The California Democratic Party, for its part, has remained neutral on Prop 19, while Whitman’s opponent, Attorney General Jerry Brown, has spoken out against it.

And the Tea Partiers? The movement has been silent even as two red states—Arizona and South Dakota—prepare to go to the polls in November to vote on whether to adopt new medical marijuana initiatives.

“It’s not an issue that the Tea Party movement is focused on or concerned about,” says Rob Gaudet, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, which brings together more than 1,000 groups across the country through its online portal, www.teapartypatriots.org. “There might be some individual Tea Party groups in an area where it is a highly discussed topic, but in general, the Tea Party won’t be paying much attention to it. It’s not a national issue, it’s not even on our radar.”

That’s a shame, says Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., one of the few Republicans in the House of Representatives who has publicly supported state reform efforts, medical marijuana, and ending the federal ban.

“The Tea Party movement is basically an anti-big government movement and the whole argument about marijuana is to get the government out of people’s lives, so there is a consistency there that resonates,” he tells TAC.

Rohrabacher finds common cause with former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a possible 2012 Republican presidential contender who makes no secret of his support for legalization. Then there is Rohrabacher’s fellow Golden State congressman Tom McClintock, who applauded a 2009 directive by the Obama Justice Department to end raids on California medical-marijuana dispensaries.

“I think wherever you stand on marijuana laws, it’s clearly a state’s decision to make,” McClintock told the Fresno Bee at the time. “And the people of California made it. I’ve never believed that the federal government had the right to regulate intrastate commerce.”

Rohrabacher believes that “the economic argument behind marijuana” will get conservatives on board. Prosecuting marijuana offenses, he says, “is of an enormous cost to us. Almost every conservative with a libertarian streak can see that. Other conservatives, who are concerned with there being a strong government and the moral fiber of the people being bolstered by strong government, are not persuaded by the fiscal argument. They are people who I bump into who are behind the curve, who are basing their political decisions on 20 or 30 years ago.”

He notes that the drug war has led to a “law-enforcement complex” akin to the “military-industrial complex,” and it is wasting tax dollars in much the same way. “This is making us less safe,” Rohrabacher insists. “We have limited dollars—you are only going to have so many prison beds … so much time for police officers to patrol your street and protect the people, instead of busting down someone’s door because they’re smoking some marijuana inside. Times have changed.”

Recent nationwide polls indicate that most Republicans still oppose legalization, though the numbers in support are slowly climbing. A January ABC/Washington Post survey found 32 percent of Republicans (and 30 of percent self-described conservatives) favored legalization—up from the 28 percent of Republicans (and 27 percent of conservatives) who responded affirmatively in an October 2009 Gallup poll.

The real traction among this group is for medical marijuana—72 percent of Republicans now say they support it, according to the ABC/Washington Post survey. “If you look at the polls, it’s not as partisan as people might think,” says Mike Meno of the Marijuana Policy Project. There are “healthy margins of support from Republicans all over the country.”

So perhaps Sarah Palin has accurately sensed some political advantage in supporting marijuana reform—even if the Tea Partiers remain diffident.

“It is slightly frustrating for me personally,” says NORML’s St. Pierre when asked about the whether there has been much support from the Tea Party movement. “How could they possibly support another seven years of federal marijuana prohibition? When I talk to these individuals—and I have been talking to them for years—they are quite libertarian on this topic, but many of them have not ‘outed’ themselves politically.”

“Almost 200 people running as Tea Party candidates, and none of them have mentioned marijuana reform,” St. Pierre notes. “I think they just fear they will not be taken seriously.”

Even Sarah Palin may not be taken seriously when she hints at marijuana reform. But St. Pierre believes the softening of the rhetoric indicates a new Republican reality—and suggests a generational attitude shift among conservatives.

“Her brand of Republicanism will probably be closer to what we will see in five to ten years, more so than older Sen. John McCain, who’s not willing to yield on something as little as being able to use marijuana in your own home.”

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 21 comments

21 Responses to Sarah Palin’s Herbal Tea

I generally support the decriminalization of drug use. What bothers me though are the unintended consequences. I.e., someone has to pay to clean up the messes that drug abuse causes.

So what personal responsibility would the stoner or abuser have in getting cleaned up in an environment in which government directly supplies or at least taxes the drugs? Should he have to pay for his treatment? Should his post-treatment wages be garnished?

I suppose there could be an “addiction recovery tax” applied to legal drug sales. But then if that was too high, it would just move the drug trade back underground. And we’d be back to where we started. Although the crimes would be tax evasion not drug possession.

Oh but the differences the crimes can make in a person’s life…evidently you can hold a high government job with tax evasion (Geithner and Rangal to name 2) while in some states growing your own marijuana can get you 5 years or more (ie Delaware)

The war on drugs was lost a long time ago. Unfortunately, we’ve created a police/justice/punishment growth industry, and spent billions criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Recall the overbearing consequences of Prohibition, which trampled on personal liberty, and bred a criminal underground to provide what people want, regardless of the law.

Drugs is a social and health issue, and should not be a criminal matter except for where individuals transgress upon other laws.

As to the cost of “…pay[ing] to clean up the messes that drug abuse causes,” this is simply another expected cost of society. Using a fraction of what’s being squandered on drug enforcement would be a net savings.

As a Libertarian, I want more personal freedom and responsibility, and less government intrusion into our private lives. How could any conservative be against that?

Folks, prohibition didn’t work. After 40-some years, it is time to end this disastrous social experiment in denying human nature.

While the Tea Party may be indifferent to the marijuana issue, that itself says something. Its focus on economics rather than social issues makes it possible for Palin to say this without fear – and reflects the waning influence of the Religious Right.

Palin’s remarks do not signal a breakthrough, but they are a step in the right direction.

Here’s a swap I might consider: let anyone who wants to buy and smoke the stuff legally do so.

But he/she/it has to sign an oath as a Registered Substance User. As a Registered Drug User, he will be treated as a legal infant; no right to vote, enter into contracts, apply for college aid, or any other so-called “civil right”. He would also be required to be under guardianship of an adult citizen as long as he remains Registered.

If someone wants to be a child, let them pay a price for the privilege. Let them be, legally, a child. With all that that implies.

Lord Karth does that apply to alcohol and prescription drug abuse? Mr. Limbaugh awaits your answer as do millions of alcoholics. Being a recovered alcoholic did not slow down our most recent conservative president. Beware the simple solutions to complex problems.

My issue is that lax law enforcement due to resource limitations in urban areas breeds a culture of lawlessness generally. Better to make pot legal, tax it, and prosecute the tax cheats. A new generation of farmers sustaining themselves. Urban ‘tax inspectors’ that pay for themselves. Urban men who can support families and not go to jail for misdemeanor ‘crimes’. Reduciton in violence/2 parent families, the good outweighs the bad. A small pct will abuse, just as with alcohol, we provide treatment and a means to recover to a state of productivity.

I don’t know what the law enforcement allocations across illegal drug classes are. But if hard drug enforcement consumes a substantial percentage of resources then we’ll still spend a lot of money on it.

Of course there are recreational users of marijuana like there are recreational users of alcohol. Crack cocaine, heroin and meth-amphetamine use are rarely recreational.

What to do about the messes those drugs create? Is there a societal obligation to clean up helpless addicts? Prevent addiction from happening? Can government legitimately tax newly legal hard drugs with very high addiction rates?

Drugs and drug abuse should be a medical issue not a criminal issue, no different than alcohol.

Im not saying to decriminalize it over the counter like alcohol. Marijuana should be prescribed and so should all other currently illegal drugs. Some should even be required to be taken under supervision so that someone doesnt wind up on top of a roof or driving a car.

But to cycle addicts in and out of prisons and psych wards and the welfare system is stupid and a waste of money.

It cost upwards of $20,000 per person per year to incarcerate someone and upwards of $20,000 per person per year to keep someone on welfare.

But an in patient drug clinic to addiction treatment and drug supervision can:
-eliminate the drug cartels, gangs, crime, dealers from the drug trade
-introduce taxes
-provide safety and supervision thru clinics and medical professionals
-allow people to be minimally productive members of society that would be burdens in psych wards or prisons or welfare.
-we can allow people to fulfill their choice of being drug free

By introducing cheap regulated recreational drugs we can coral and restrain people from transitioning to harder illegal substances…so called designer drugs.

I am dissapointed in Sarah for these comments. As a patriotic Reaganite moral conservative I fully support the war on drugs. Marijuana destroys lives and is anti-family values and it must remain illegal. We need to enact tougher punishments for offenders in order to stop people from using it. I alter my mind the moral legal American government aproved way every single night by popping a few Vicodin pills and drinking a fifth of Jim Beam. As for my dissapointment in Sarah, since she is still a full on advocate of the war on terrorism this Reagan conservative will still remain a lukewarm supporter. Hopefully she understands the error of her recent statement about marijuana and retracts it.

Legalisation means fewer criminals, and less burden on our police, and prisons. Therefore, less tax upon the citizenry. Legalisation also removes the markup which fuels criminal enterprise. Again, there is less burden upon our jails and police. With both these classes of people not in jail, they are free to work something legal – which generates taxes. Finally, the cultivation of hemp creates American jobs, of which we are now in need.

I would add also that fewer jailers and jailed has a freeing, humanising effect upon our society. It’s an old idea – responsibility breeds competence. The more moral our society, the fewer laws there are, and it is towards this end that we should strive. To have the ability to choose to do irresponsible things, with alcohol, marijuana, or anything, is ultimately a boon. It allows us to see these failures openly, without the distorting lens of law, and learn ourselves regarding their hazard. In the end, fear and abuse of such a relatively mild substance can only be symptomatic of a greater cultural deficit.

Why is it that these idiot politician always call mj the gateway drug. I know in my experience and most of the people I grew up with, alcohol and cigarettes were the first drugs we tried. MJ is not nearly the gateway drug as alcohol is.

There are links between marijuana and schizophrenia and teen suicide in males particularly.. Aside from the health issues for which alcohol and tobacco are arguably worse ..if it was legalised the huge cashflow would leave the criminal cashflow into the taxable and health regulated cashflow. It’s not like Sarah to have otherwise than hardline boilerplate Republican views (ala her first name buds Rush and Sean) so good for her. For all the derision of her she did keep her special needs baby, raise a household of children and her son is or has been serving in Iraq ( or was it Afghanistan?). Shes obviously right on abortion. The rest though…just madness.

All drugs should be legalized, tax and regulated in a CONTROLLED environment (i.e. ID checks before buying, no laced drugs and deception, in a store rather than drug trafficker, etc.). These are just substances! Yes, people can abuse them, but what edible substance CAN’T be abused?? Should we have gov’t put a limit on how much people can eat to prevent obesity? The main cause of the black market in drugs is obviously the prohibition. There wasn’t all this crime and bullshit before they were made illegal and gov’t declared “war” on drugs (aka war on the people).

Of course there are some costs, but there are costs with EVERYTHING. Let’s work to minimize the costs within a legal, controlled framework, rather than a totally chaotic illegal environment.

The 500-pound gorilla in the room is that the cannabis economy is the only healthy consumer segment in the US now. A medical marijuana dispensary in the South SF Bay Area is reported to be paying a $1000 fine each day for operating in violation of city codes, but he happily pays.

Oakland approved city-run growing warehouses for 400,000 sqft of plants to produce 6 tons of weed for current smokers.

There is a HUGE cohort of potential smokers only refraining because of the law. Once it is legalized, the avalanche of their money that will pour into the business will stun the PTB. The Bay Area will need 600 tons a year to meet the demand.